Invasion in Anarchy

[Small Huts]

... normalisation ...

... you get used to it after a while

We agree. Which also expresses the actual depth of Raider Unity. I've raided. We agreed on something. Therefore there is Raider Unity.
In actuality there is merely Raider Circular Reasoning.

[Casita]

Random is often misused. As I'll point out to you. TBR are known to fight the 'native blight' it's their main message as 'raider purest' , yet making deals with natives; a joke, nonsense how ever you want to put it.

Now Casita can be joke, but you have to have something other than 'random' to make it so.

You didn't say "TBR making deals with natives is a joke", you said "TBR is a joke", as in the organization. Say one thing, then present your elaboration as another thing... Pretty confusing. Do you even know what you're saying or are you making it up as you go along?

Within the context of Yoriz's screen shot ( the more), it's pretty obvious. The great thing is the amount of juggling you had to do just to reply. A bit of semantic juggling and you have yourself a self-serving conclusion, bravo! HA!

Furthermore, I was under the assumption that the commenter or agent, if you will, was familiar with TBR's nifty little slogans, and along with context, one might be able to see the joke implied. That particular assumption was my fault. Should've known I cant just say "red", I have to also explain its chemical make up too; the metaphor is something I just made up, especially for you fritter cakes.
( the metaphor comment is in direct relation to your conclusion)

At any rate, still not sure 'random' really explains my wicked controversial statement "TBR is a joke"

[YoriZ]

The invasion in Anarchy and this thread start bringing clear insights in raider organisations. Especially in the TBR raider organisation, one of the most notorious NationStates has known. The post of Gest shows the way the staff of TBR looks upon natives:

... You'd be surprised about the things natives are willing to tell us about, liberation plans, if you talk with them a little, or things they're willing to do if we pledge to go easier on their region. We got one group of native to desist from their efforts to liberate themselves.

What exactly is said here? Natives are to be looked down upon. Natives are naive and can be manipulated quite easy. TBR staff intentionally does disinform natives. E.G. encouraging natives to leave their region. Telling natives to endorse them to avoid future banjection. Next to that, the way the staff looks down upon natives als reflects the way their raiders act. Many raiders are ridiculising and denigrating native nations causing anger and frustration.

This brings me back again to the next point. The fact that raiding keeps the aspect of griefing in this game. As I argued before, this griefing is a way of cyberbullying. And believe me, I know how institutionalised bullying can become. You can argue with me that raiding is not griefing and that the rules of griefing in an invasion where replace by the system of influence. However, here I bring you an interesting quote by Feuer Ritter in the discussion about 'true raiderism':

... a raid that lacks griefing and total disruption and chaos isn't a true raid. What is the point in a regional invasion if we can't have a good time like posting stuff on rmb, ejecting natives and doing all kinds of raider stuff, there's none.

What is wrong in this quote I can hear many raiders asking? Well, let me explain the rules of this game that I came to know very well in the last days. I bring you to the Etiquette of NationStates gameplay:

Also prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you.

Using the above quote of Feuer Ritter and the Game Rules I come to this logic: Prohibited(Raiding) /\ Griefing(Prohibited)

Raiding = Griefing AND Griefing = Prohibited SO Raiding = Prohibited

What is the conclusion in this case? Raiding has evolved in NationStates as a result of a gameplay with regions, delegates and founders. In the beginning, raiding had some very complicated aspects as there came a griefing rule in existence. To keep the raiding game possible, regional influence was invented and griefing rules in invasion where changed. However, this does not take away the fact that raiding is actually griefing. Following the rules of an invasion there are no more griefing rules. Following the rules of the game, the practise of griefing is prohibited.

So what can we do to deal with this discrepancy? I think victims of invasion and griefing should look for help with the moderators because griefing is prohibited. Second I believe the interesting fact is that gamerules in NationStates are adaptive. Rules in invasions are things that have changed quite a lot. I will actively start to look for support for a realistic change in the invasion rules so the discrepancy between griefing and raiding can be resolved. Anybody with viable suggestions, please contact me in a telegram.

[Feuer Ritter]

Harassment/Griefing: Harassing/griefing a nation or region because of their words or actions is forbidden regardless - in telegrams, Regional Messageboard (RMB) posts, and on the forums. Save abusive telegrams so that moderators can examine them. Use the Additional Information checkboxes on the Getting Help Page to report abusive RMB posts. Report abusive forum posts in the Moderation forum.

Flame/Threats: Personal attacks against other players, expressed via OOC (out-of-character) comments; insults, swearing and anything posted with intent to offend. In-character remarks can be interpreted this way as well; watch what you post if other posters are unaware you're not serious. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Repeated instances of flaming directed at the same player can be considered harassment, a more serious offense.

Puppet Flooding: Any player or group of players creating large numbers of puppets for the purpose of spamming, harassing, or annoying a region, be they invaders, defenders, or natives, may find all such puppets ... and their main nations ... deleted without warning as Regional Happenings spammers.

The Black Riders don't involve in any of the above rule violations. We don't use personal attacks or spamming on the invaded regions RMB's, just light taunts, raider-native arguments that usually turn in natives being warned for rule violations, like you YoriZ and other people in Anarchy, that's because most of the natives can't hold their temper and involve in personal attacks, flaming and spamming against the raiders.

In my post about griefing I was making a comparison between the different styles of managing an invasion by pure raiders, moderates and soft raiders. The Black Riders is such a group that does anything within rules and regulations to "harm" an invaded region. Harm that can be easily undone after the raiders leave unless the region is refounded. But even with a region refounded, the community of that region still exists, and can continue playing in another region that actually has a founder and is safer.

[YoriZ]

... We don't use personal attacks or spamming on the invaded regions RMB's, just light taunts, raider-native arguments that usually turn in natives being warned for rule violations, like you YoriZ and other people in Anarchy, that's because most of the natives can't hold their temper and involve in personal attacks, flaming and spamming against the raiders...

What does this learn us in regards to raider behaviour and griefing? Raiders are fully aware of the fact that their actions lead to possible rule violations by natives. Raiders keep their taunting remarks and arguments most of the times within the rules in the hope of tempting natives in rule violations. Natives end up being warned by moderators and sometimes having puppets and even main nations deleted. It all comes to how well native nations are in dealing with anger managment. Raiders know they harm regions they raid. They even think that a true invasion should be griefing. TBR is such a group that does anything within rules and regulations to harm an invaded region. About that point, I posted the above. Maybe some of the rules and regulations should be altered to protect natives more.

... Harm that can be easily undone after the raiders leave unless the region is refounded. But even with a region refounded, the community of that region still exists, and can continue playing in another region that actually has a founder and is safer.

What does this learn about NationStates? When a founder of a region does cease to exist, that region becomes fair game for raiders. The fact that founders cease to exist, is quite random and out of the span of control of communities living in regions.
The consesus is that communities in founderless regions are responsible themselves for the protection of the region.
They have multiple option to do so:
[a]Have strong ties with defender organisation to avoid invasions and to have a backup for liberation atttempts;
[b]Password-Protect their region so invasion forces can't enter;
[c]Reach consensus within the region to refound the region themselves to acquire a new founder;
[d]Found a new region for the community to live in and leave the old region for what it is.

In Anarchy there is/was no consensus for options b, c and d, because these options harm the character of the region as a free haven.
The region has had strong ties with defender organisations. However due to new tactics by TBR, there is a strong inbalance in the r/d game. TBR uses sleeping WA-agents that gather enough influence in regions to make sure that banjections of incoming defenders can be easely done without loosing any influence. These agents stay for months in targetted regions before becomming active. There is also the assumption that these nations are operated by TBR staff. In a well organised scedule, any update of the region is covered in a way that no incoming nations could build up any infuence. Very nifty and cunning, I have to admit. I think in the 165 days occupation of Anarchy, they didn't miss one of the 330 update times. Well played by TBR and there is certain ground for their kind of organisation as they have a massive fanbase. However, their organisations is based on an inbalance in the r/d game as discussed before.

So I believe that there should be an option for natives in regions where the founder ceases to exist to opt out of the r/d game.
I will start gathering support to investigate e.g. an option to do this in the form of a security counsil proposal.

[Feuer Ritter]

Maybe some of the rules and regulations should be altered to protect natives more.

No they don't, the moderation does not need to change rules because some of the natives can't hold their nerves. Natives must take a good look at the current rules and know better than throwing themselves in rule violations and then screaming that this is unfair.

So game mechanics changes are needed to deal with the effort and good management we are putting in our invasions. How is that fair to us, the raiders? If you cannot involve yourself as much as we can, that is not the fault of faulty game mechanics.

[YoriZ]

Maybe some of the rules and regulations should be altered to protect natives more.

No they don't, the moderation does not need to change rules because some of the natives can't hold their nerves. Natives must take a good look at the current rules and know better than throwing themselves in rule violations and then screaming that this is unfair.

So game mechanics changes are needed to deal with the effort and good management we are putting in our invasions. How is that fair to us, the raiders? If you cannot involve yourself as much as we can, that is not the fault of faulty game mechanics.

Natives must take a good look at the current rules as well as raiders should. It is not only natives throwing themselves in rule violations during invasion.

Game mechanics have been changing all the times. New changes are not needed because of the effort and good management TBR puts in invasions. Changes I will be promoting are needed to protect minorities. A better balance in the r/d game might be needed as well. My main concern is that the raiders playing field is defined by natives homeground and in the case of this topic Anarchy.

[RiderSyl]

Changes I will be promoting are needed to protect minorities.

What? What in the world are you talking about?

[Blood Wine]

Changes I will be promoting are needed to protect minorities.

What? What in the world are you talking about?

HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YoriZ,you crack me up
A minority is someone who is less populous and underrepresented

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

One of the best raider retorts to anyone claiming this is against the rules is as follows-

http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq#WA
Section: Regions
"My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who abuses her power! Make her stop!

Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get her unelected! Delegates are free to use or abuse their power as they see fit."

[Small Huts]

One of the best raider retorts to anyone claiming this is against the rules is as follows-

http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq#WA
Section: Regions
"My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who abuses her power! Make her stop!

Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get her unelected! Delegates are free to use or abuse their power as they see fit."

This retort conflates Raider Delegates with Native Delegates and is therefore false.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

First off, nice Vocabulary!

No, that wasn't sarcasm.

I truly cherish seeing people use English to it's full extent.

Anyways...

It does not effectively distinguish there. Is a raider delegate such as Duck Boss not "an evil dictator who abuses her power!" ?

Here, it distinguishes to a degree, in listing the common ways delegates are are appointed. Yet, it lists none as being more or less legitimate.

"Okay, let's get this out of the way. In a region, the nation with the most endorsements is automatically appointed Delegate. This usually grants significant powers, including the ability to eject other nations from the region.

One way this can work is a region's residents endorse the nation they think would make the best Delegate, and that nation rules over it with a wise and gentle hand. Another way is that nations make private deals on who to endorse in order to make sure that their ally gets into power. A third way is a bunch of nations from a different region unexpectedly move in, endorse each other, and seize the Delegacy in a coup. This one is called "the invasion game" (also "raiding," or "R/D" for raiding/defending)."

So how is it false to equate them? Two paragraphs above, it is described as a method of gaining delegacy alongside two others. In, in fact, does equate them. Then it goes on to state the original quote-

"My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who abuses her power! Make her stop!

Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get her unelected! Delegates are free to use or abuse their power as they see fit."

Delegates are free to abuse their power as they see fit. It does not say "Delegates elected by a region's resident as who they think would make the best delegate," or "Delegates elected by private deals," for that matter. It makes no distinction.

So why is it false?

Duck Boss was elected in one of the listed ways of obtaining delegacy. He is using his power as he sees fit. How does that break those rules?

[Blood Wine]

This is one thread I never expected civil and well constructed arguments,kudos

[Small Huts]

So why is it false?

Because Natives.

The example asks what may be done of "my Delegate". Any Delegate not elected by Natives would be an Invader and not what this example is trying to answer.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

This is one thread I never expected civil and well constructed arguments,kudos

See the first part below.

So why is it false?

Because Natives.

The example asks what may be done of "my Delegate". Any Delegate not elected by Natives would be an Invader and not what this example is trying to answer.

Well, the edited version is a *bit* better. At least I can address this....

...by pointing back to my last post. First off, that's not correct. In fact, it says "My Region's WA Delegate." Whomever that may be. As I stated and showed above, there's not a distinction that states any one of those three methods of obtaining delegacy is more or less valid.

[The North Polish Union]

One of the best raider retorts to anyone claiming this is against the rules is as follows-

http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq#WA
Section: Regions
"My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who abuses her power! Make her stop!

Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get her unelected! Delegates are free to use or abuse their power as they see fit."

This retort conflates Raider Delegates with Native Delegates and is therefore false.

Delegates are delegates. The kind doesn't matter.

[Natapoc]

One of the lead participants in the raid against Anarchy: Koth II, ceased to exist today. Never getting to see the ultimate fulfillment of the process which he or she helped start some 168 days ago.

I can understand that. Harassing strangers on internet forums can't be something that would maintain the interest of many people for very long.

I wonder how many other "riders" will cease to exist before this occupation ends?

Former nation Koth II
Founded: Mon Oct 15 2012
Ceased to exist: Sun Jul 20 2014
Population: 3.761 billion

[Mallorea and Riva]

One of the lead participants in the raid against Anarchy: Koth II, ceased to exist today. Never getting to see the ultimate fulfillment of the process which he or she helped start some 168 days ago.

I can understand that. Harassing strangers on internet forums can't be something that would maintain the interest of many people for very long.

I wonder how many other "riders" will cease to exist before this occupation ends?

Former nation Koth II
Founded: Mon Oct 15 2012
Ceased to exist: Sun Jul 20 2014
Population: 3.761 billion

You know that's a puppet right? The player is still around and has plenty of other active nations.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

And as a matter of fact, a puppet of one of the co-founders of a great raiding region to boot

[The Pacifican Islands]

This "griefing" shit again...

If you go read the rules of the site, 'Harassment/Griefing' is under the Forbidden Actions section. Raiding, however, is not forbidden.

This site distinguishes the two as being separate from each other. You should too.

But then you guys took my region so and screwed up relations and nearly made the mods drop the banhammer on us so I would say its REALLY annoying but yeah.

[Small Huts]

This is one thread I never expected civil and well constructed arguments,kudos

See the first part below.

Because Natives.

The example asks what may be done of "my Delegate". Any Delegate not elected by Natives would be an Invader and not what this example is trying to answer.

Well, the edited version is a *bit* better. At least I can address this....

...by pointing back to my last post. First off, that's not correct. In fact, it says "My Region's WA Delegate." Whomever that may be. As I stated and showed above, there's not a distinction that states any one of those three methods of obtaining delegacy is more or less valid.

Yes, thank-you for the correction, but it does nothing to eliminate the inference to Native Delegacy. My earlier misquote, 'my Delegate' is arguable less Native than 'my regional WA Delegate'. You see my point then?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Yes, thank-you for the correction, but it does nothing to eliminate the inference to Native Delegacy. My earlier misquote, 'my Delegate' is arguable less Native than 'my regional WA Delegate'. You see my point then?

No, sorry, I don't. As I've pointed out, two sections above that one the FAQ mentions three types of delegacies. Nowhere does it say one has more rights than any other. Nowhere does it say one's regime is more or less legitimate. I would venture that their choice in "My region's WA Delegate" may have fact been specifically worded that way exactly for this reason. I see your argument. When yo hear "My region's" you think of the one elected by your region. I would argue though that it's pure a technical term. The delegate of the region at that time, by whatever method elected.

What if the region is split? The region as a whole has not chosen a delegate. One faction has pulled ahead, and won the delegacy, henceforth banjecting their opposition. A coup. Those on the losing side would make the same argument as if raided, but the fact remains that the majority of the WA nations in the region at the time picked a delegate, and that delegate can do what they want.

[Small Huts]

Yes, thank-you for the correction, but it does nothing to eliminate the inference to Native Delegacy. My earlier misquote, 'my Delegate' is arguable less Native than 'my regional WA Delegate'. You see my point then?

No, sorry, I don't. As I've pointed out, two sections above that one the FAQ mentions three types of delegacies. Nowhere does it say one has more rights than any other. Nowhere does it say one's regime is more or less legitimate. I would venture that their choice in "My region's WA Delegate" may have fact been specifically worded that way exactly for this reason. I see your argument. When yo hear "My region's" you think of the one elected by your region. I would argue though that it's pure a technical term. The delegate of the region at that time, by whatever method elected.

What if the region is split? The region as a whole has not chosen a delegate. One faction has pulled ahead, and won the delegacy, henceforth banjecting their opposition. A coup. Those on the losing side would make the same argument as if raided, but the fact remains that the majority of the WA nations in the region at the time picked a delegate, and that delegate can do what they want.

Please don't think I mean to say that raiding is illegal, merely that this explanation is a bad one to use. You're basically saying that the best argument you can come up with is that there's a loophole which you exploit. Use "Invasion What?" to legitimise your actions with the law. One's morality may still lie in question, however.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Oh, I never said it was Moral Just legal. I don't think it's a "loophole" when it's so extensively described in the FAQ.

[YoriZ]

One of the lead participants in the raid against Anarchy: Koth II, ceased to exist today. Never getting to see the ultimate fulfillment of the process which he or she helped start some 168 days ago.

I can understand that. Harassing strangers on internet forums can't be something that would maintain the interest of many people for very long.

I wonder how many other "riders" will cease to exist before this occupation ends?

Former nation Koth II
Founded: Mon Oct 15 2012
Ceased to exist: Sun Jul 20 2014
Population: 3.761 billion

35 Minutes ago: The Fluffy Fascist Ducks of Duck-Boss updated the World Factbook entry of Anarchy and removed Koth ii from the list of riders participating in the raid.